The Ethics of Care and the Newfoundland Paid Family Caregiver Program: An Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
framework emphasizes the nexus of morality and politics, while also locating caregiving, care receiving, and relations of care as fundamental to the human condition.As opposed to relying on abstractions, critical ethics of care privileges the lived reality of all people, and seeks to illuminate and critically interrogate the complex ways social policies and care relations are intertwined.As the Newfoundland Paid Family Caregiver Program plays a pivotal role in shaping the care relations of the participants in the program, the use of an ethical and methodological framework which not only acknowledges these relations, but actually locates them as a primary reality for all people, allows me to understand how political decisions and policy formation affect the everyday lives of caregivers and care receivers.By employing this framework, this thesis contributes to the development of a comprehensive view of the effects of this program on long-term elder caregiving and care receiving in Newfoundland and Labrador by exploring how this program allows participants to address the needs, desires, and tensions that arise in caregiving and care receiving.My analysis of the Newfoundland Paid Family Caregiver Program using a critical ethics of care lens reveals several salient points about this program.It highlights the fact that this program conceptualizes humans as independent, rather than relational beings: as such, I argue that under this program, moments of dependency, and indeed, ongoing dependencies, are framed as individual failings, rather than acknowledged as a fundamental reality of human life.My analysis also uncovers how this program is (re)shaping caregiving, care receiving, and care work by downloading the responsibility for care onto the family and (back) into the private sphere, in what perhaps could be called the 'refamilialization' of care, as opposed to the 'defamilialization' of care
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".